On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> The significance is that the kernel determines the eth* name order.
> Right now, you are lucky in that the order is what you think it should
> be, but if something changes in the kernel causing your cards to be
> initialized in a d
On 04/08/2013 11:04 AM, Bruce Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
> Just deali
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
> > >> Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, the
On 2013-04-07 4:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are
they modules?
I'm very interested in the significance of this question..
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
> >> Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
> >> sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a
> > fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic
> > for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists?
> >
>
> "Broken" or not is totally d
On Apr 7, 2013 5:59 PM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> > > Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom
> > > naming scheme when using mdev.
> >
> > ***UDEV*** has broken using "eth[0-9]". mdev works just fine, thank
>
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom
> > naming scheme when using mdev.
>
> ***UDEV*** has broken using "eth[0-9]". mdev works just fine, thank
> you.
udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:06:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the
> iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done
> without problems) because of "race conditions". So I changed over to
> net[0-n] on one machine, and
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:46:13PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote
> Ah, thanks for the clarification! :-)
>
> So, from now on, for safety I'm going to use a custom naming scheme,
> like lan[0-9]+ or wan[0-9]+ or wifi[0-9]+, anything that won't
> collide with kernel names of eth[0-9]+
>
> Now I only h
On 04/06/2013 11:06 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-04-06, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
>> Ahhh... I think now I understand...
>>
>> So. Here's my summarization of the situation:
>>
>> * The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order
>> * So, to fix this, udev decided to use th
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 07:11:46PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> Ahhh... I think now I understand...
>
> So. Here's my summarization of the situation:
>
> * The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order
> * So, to fix this, udev decided to use the physical attachment poi
On 2013-04-06 10:40 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:22:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
So, other than userland scripts that I created myself and know where
they live, where do I search for any files/scripts
created/generated/maintained by the system, for references to eth0/1 to
chan
On Apr 6, 2013 7:32 PM, wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:11:46 +0700
> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > >
> > > > * on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT
> > > >
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:22:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> So, other than userland scripts that I created myself and know where
> they live, where do I search for any files/scripts
> created/generated/maintained by the system, for references to eth0/1 to
> change to net0/1? Is it just /etc/conf.d?
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file they've had for over
On 2013-04-06 8:31 AM, kwk...@hkbn.net wrote:
Almost, except you should not specify a name that is also eth[0-9]+
(what you called 'traditional' name), since it can cause a race
condition where the kernel and udev fight for the name. While it used
to be the case (i.e.
Ok, thanks, I *think* I'
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:11:46 +0700
Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> >
> > > * on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT
> > > DRIVERS*
> > > * drivers are built as modules, not
On Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> > * on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT DRIVERS*
> > * drivers are built as modules, not built-in into the kernel
> > * is it possible to set things up so that the
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 09:43:28 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > * on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT DRIVERS*
> > * drivers are built as modules, not built-in into the kernel
> > * is it possible to set things up so that t
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> * on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT DRIVERS*
> * drivers are built as modules, not built-in into the kernel
> * is it possible to set things up so that the network driver modules do
> not load automatically at bo
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote
> If people are using ethx names and getting away with it it is probably
> because they are loading the drivers as modules, or by chance the kernel
> is initializing the cards in the order they expect. There is no
> guarantee that will
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:11:39PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
> > Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
> > sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same
> > /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.ru
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:58:02PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> I'd still like to know why the contents of my current rules file differs
> so much from the examples I've seen... ie, the two extra items that are
> in mine ('DRIVERS==' and 'KERNEL=='), and the missing one
> ('ACTION==')... and whethe
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
> Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
> sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file they've had for over a year,
> which was working with udev-171
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Neither of these is needed if you want to have your own names,
> because naming the interfaces yourself in /etc/uev/70-net-names.rules or
> whatever you call the file overrides udev's predictable names.
>
> If people are using eth
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
> > from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
> > requires more than
On 2013-04-05 2:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-sl
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
> from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
> requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to
> /dev/null...? Apparently
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to
/dev/null...? Apparently you should also create your own
70-my-net-names.rules - but I've h
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:07:00AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-04-04 5:13 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I gets so bad that people are starting to make shit up to be worried
> > about, instead of just reading the simple document that is right in
> > front of their eyes that already fully and c
On 2013-04-03 6:28 PM, Mick wrote:
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
manually.
Right, it used to be auto-generated by udev scripts.
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:05:06PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> > Or, as an alternative, *how* to switch to eudev (their web page does
> > *not* have simple/precise instructions on how to switch, only a
> > description of what it is) - ie
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:28:10PM +0100, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
>
> > Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
> > those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
> > manually.
>
> Right, it used to b
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Not to mention the fact that this final/current seemingly complete
> document was way, way too late for the many people who ended up with
> totally broken systems, and *that* is what caused all of the 'hysteria
> and mob-think' you so conde
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> > Have you read the news item?
>
> Yes. I found it rather confusing.
>
> It refers to a "new format" for rules, but the examples use the exact
> same format as the old rules.
Poor choice of terminology there, the format is the s
On 04/04/2013 10:59 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-04-03, Mick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
>>> those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
>>> manually.
>>
On 2013-04-04 5:13 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I gets so bad that people are starting to make shit up to be worried
about, instead of just reading the simple document that is right in
front of their eyes that already fully and completely answers the
question at hand
But Alan, haven't you read
On 04/04/2013 10:10, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> Sort of the same here, except that I use lan0 instead of eth0, because
> once in a while I use broadcom's wireless drivers instead of the kernel
> drivers, and the former assign an ethX name.
>
> Sadly, I still get some problems after resuming
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
> Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
> those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
> manually.
Right, it used to be auto-generated by udev scripts. With udev-200 you are
meant to r
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:06:20PM +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> > On 2013-04-03, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >
> >> Have you read the news item?
> >
> > Yes. I found it rather confusing.
> >
> > It refers to a "new format" for rules, but the examples use the exac
And if it's confusing for the 'bit jockeys' on this mailing list what do
you think will be the effect on the casual user?
This could have been handled better, imho. What happened to that
documentation mojo Gentoo is known for? The post-install notes
are a real head scratcher.
On Apr 3, 2013 9:40 A
On 02-Apr-13 21:58, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 02/04/2013 21:41, Tanstaafl wrote:
Are you saying that now, with udev-200, the default is the OLD way, and
you have to intentionally enable the NEW way??
No, you are stilling misunderstanding. The news item goes to great
lengths to explain that ther
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:13:12 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-04-02, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> >
> >> In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty
> >> much identical to the ones I already had, so I coul
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty much
> identical to the ones I already had, so I couldn't figure out what was
> different (other than the default interface names, which still aren't
> really predictab
Am Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:15:40 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet :
> Am Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC)
> schrieb Grant Edwards :
>
> > On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > > No, you are stilling misunderstanding.
> >
> > He's not the only one.
> >
> > > The news item goes to great lengths t
Am Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC)
schrieb Grant Edwards :
> On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> > No, you are stilling misunderstanding.
>
> He's not the only one.
>
> > The news item goes to great lengths to explain that there is a new
> > way and it is different from the old way.
>
On 02/04/2013 22:31, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> No, you are stilling misunderstanding.
>
> He's not the only one.
>
>> The news item goes to great lengths to explain that there is a new
>> way and it is different from the old way.
>
> I did grok that much.
On 02/04/2013 21:41, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-04-02 3:21 PM, Jarry wrote:
>> On 02-Apr-13 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey
>>> wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: "The feature can
also be
completely disabled usin
On 2013-04-02 3:21 PM, Jarry wrote:
On 02-Apr-13 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: "The feature can
also be
completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line."
I just
added that
On 02-Apr-13 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: "The feature can also be
completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line." I just
added that to my grub.conf entries and I sail bl
On 02/04/2013 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey
> wrote:
>> The most important para to me in the news item was: "The feature can also be
>> completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line." I just
>> added that to my grub.conf entries a
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> The most important para to me in the news item was: "The feature can also be
> completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line." I just
> added that to my grub.conf entries and I sail blissfully on with eth0.
I updated re
On Monday 01 April 2013 20:51:45 Michael Mol wrote:
--->8
> So, there are three conceivable configurations (initramfs
> notwithstanding):
What a fine word! It's a while since I saw it last.
> 1. With systems which don't require /usr binaries before /usr would be
> mounted, separate /usr is not
Michael Mol wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>>> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
>> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
>>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> Since it's obviou
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> > On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
> >> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> >>> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
> Pandu Poluan wrote:
> >
> > Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:19:18 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > What the article didn't mention was that if you change your interface
> > names, you have to create a new symlink in /etc/init.d and add it to
> > the default runlevel. I'm glad I spotted that one before rebooting:)
>
> So, just
>
> ln -
On Apr 1, 2013 2:10 AM, "Alan McKinnon" wrote:
>
> On 31/03/2013 20:26, Dale wrote:
> > Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> >> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
> >>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
>
> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
> mentality, I'm curious abo
On 01/04/13 01:01, Dale wrote:
> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
>> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
>> same behavior...
>>
>> Rgds,
>> --
>>
>
> I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert.
On Sunday 31 Mar 2013 21:19:18 Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-03-31 3:37 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > What the article didn't mention was that if you change your interface
> > names, you have to create a new symlink in /etc/init.d and add it to
> > the default runlevel. I'm glad I spotted that one bef
On 2013-03-31 3:37 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
What the article didn't mention was that if you change your interface
names, you have to create a new symlink in /etc/init.d and add it to
the default runlevel. I'm glad I spotted that one before rebooting:)
So, just
ln -s net.net0 -> net.lo
Then a
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 31/03/2013 20:26, Dale wrote:
>> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
>
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:44:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I'm just hoping people will be able to find a solution to this that
> works well for them. I especially wish that for those managing a remote
> system with little or no physical access.
Well I just updated a headless box, followed the instructio
On 31/03/2013 20:26, Dale wrote:
> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
>> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
>>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same behavior...
>>>
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
>> Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> On 2013-03-31, Dale wrote:
>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
>>> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
>>> same behavior...
>>>
>> I synced yesterday and I didn't see th
Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
>
>
> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway"
> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
> same behavior...
>
> Rgds,
> --
>
I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert. Last eudev update
was in Feb. so I *guess* not
On Mar 31, 2013 7:13 PM, "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)"
wrote:
>
> On 2013-03-31, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> > On 2013-03-31, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> On 30/03/13 17:15, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >>> Ok, just read the new news item and the linked udev-guide wiki page
> >>
> >> You should probab
69 matches
Mail list logo
